A systematic review conducted by the Campbell Collaboration looked at cognitive behavioral interventions applied to law offenders and found a 25% reduction on average in recidivism, with the most effective configurations of this type of intervention achieving reductions by up to 50%. The study also indicates that no significant variations in intervention efficacy have been identified whether the treated population is adolescent or adult, so, all other things beings equal, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) tends to be effective for both juveniles and adults. This systematic review also points out two other important aspects. First, the most decisive factor for the effectiveness of interventions is the quality of their implementation (how well implemented the programs are and how well trained the providers are); secondly, the results reveal that CBT has a greater effect among offenders at a high risk of recidivism than among those at a lower risk [1].
The Crime Solutions Platform rates this type of intervention as promising both in terms of reducing criminal recidivism and when applied to adult offenders whose likelihood of recidivism is estimated to be at a moderate to high risk [2].
When applied as an anger management strategy for adult male offenders, the practice is also rated as promising in terms of reducing criminal recidivism (including violent crime recidivism) by Crime Solutions.
Specifically in this case, offenders who participated and completed treatment showed a 42% reduction in the risk of overall criminal recidivism and a 56% reduction in the risk of reconviction for violent crime, compared to those who did not participate in the intervention [3].
Finally, the Crime Solutions Platform has also collected evidence of the application of CBT to reduce antisocial behavior in juvenile offenders under house arrest. In this case, however, the practice is rated as “no effect” in terms of reducing recidivism (measured after a follow-up period of 24 months). However, according to the Crime Reduction Toolkit summary, these insufficient results can be explained by the fact that residential programs may have difficulties in maintaining and generalizing behavioral changes if peers, family, and school cannot be directly included in the treatment programs. This is because, in the framework of CBT, it is important that the intervention includes mechanisms that provide individuals in treatment with the opportunity to practice new skills and behaviors in settings where they occur naturally in everyday life [4].